In the book, The Quest for Human Decency, I discuss that perceptions of reality are highly impacted by mainstream media. If we see something enough, we begin to believe a reality to be true based on our visual experiences. For this reason, as part of my website, I felt it was important to have movie reviews of critical works of cinema not in the mainstream consciousness.
Many critical works of cinema are excluded from schools across the United States. For this reason, I hope teachers will take a chance and show some of the movies in their classrooms.
As this blog develops, I would like to have curriculum for teachers. I also want to have the movies available for purchase.
5 comments:
An interesting book that I'm still reading but simply had a comment. I find it odd that you mention the movie Blood Diamond (not diamonds)You speak of mainstream media affecting our perception. I challenge that this movie is a product of the mainstream. It is produced by Warner Brothers and consequently Time Warner. Two pretty mainstream sources for film.
Also the actions of those involved with the film are absurd. They promised to provide limbs for children involved with the film and never followed through. Talk about human decency! (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10232006/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm)
Yes, I see the irony that it is a NY Post article)
Why not tell people to read a novel, instead of watch a film about this issue. There are plenty of primary sources from individuals involved in the conflict that don't sned money to our buddies at Time Warner.
Alan my friend,
We have to agree to disagree. Sometimes, mainstream media has movies in which the actors and directors subvert the dominant paradigm. I ask you this, how many people knew about the plight of the people in Sierra Leone prior to seeing this movie. Leo took a chance on his career by taking this movie. By his own account, it was a chance.
Regarding some comments you made: Seems odd you watched the movie and are advising others not to support Time Warner. Also, try not to be arrogant with spelling. You wrote sned instead of send. It is called a keyboard error. My point is this: To change the hearts and minds of people, lets not sound arrogant ourselves. This is what turns people off.
Appreciate the feedback my friend. Good thing I did not tell you how much I loved Flags of Our Fathers.....
Alan my friend, sometimes we write when we are tired. Sorry for the comments that offended you. I admire your thoughts on corporate exploitation and you made me think about the other side of the argument. You are right. Every dollar given to a company that supports a structure that is unfairly giving wealth to the few is a dollar wasted on the machine.
I guess when I first read your response, I reflected on my chapter in the book regarding Edward R Murrow and Rod Serling. They used the mainstream media to thwart the corporate power structures that censored television so heavily in the 50's and 60's
I never really thought of your point of view, which is what my book is generally speaking asking the reader to do, consider other points of view. So Alan, I again must point out you were right and I was not open minded to your thoughts and comments.
Not very decent of me at all.
Keep in touch my good friend.
Len
One more thing Alan, feel free to post comments as my blog grows and expands. I would like to know what you think about new features and articles that are being posted daily. Also, feel free to write and post suggestions for the literary review blog. I know you have much more to offer the fight for decency.
Alan, I really believe that I sincerely considered your point of view and apologized. You were the aggressor in suggesting that somehow your point of view was greater in value, without having all the facts. I will point out some key facts you were not aware of.
Let me point out the difference between The History Channel and the Movie Blood Diamonds. First, regarding your comments about suggesting people read the New York Times. This paper has repeatedly reported stories that are inaccurate for financial benefit. It is documented and happening without a cause for alarm.
Regarding your suggestion that people read the article, the article is inaccurate. If you did a search on a Research Database that is generally accepted, you would learn that the NY Times story about Warner Brothers was falsely reported.
Warner Brothers never made such a claim that they would help the extras. Do you honestly believe studio executives are hands on and on the set of such remote locations as South Africa? What happened is, Leonardo DiCaprio (Which I accurately said should be admired) was inspired by the story and meeting the people impacted by the trade and after meeting the amputees from Sierra Leone started a fund for victims from the Blood Diamond Trade. He raised over two hundred thousand dollars and Warner Brothers matched this fund, after the movie was released. They did fund the money even though the movie was not a financial success as anticipated.
The extras from the movie did get their limbs along with many other victims of the Blood Diamond trade.
The History Channel documentary has no record of charitable efforts that I could find. I also could not find examples on the scale of Leonardo DiCaprio or Warner Brothers. What other studios or authors can you provide that were as generous as these individuals?
This is why I deleted your entries because they were inaccurate and falsely attacked an organization without the facts. Am I a fan of Time Warner, absolutely not. However, generous acts can be recognized when they happen. I still stand by my assertions that the movie brought attention to a widely ignored situation in Africa.
For the record, I never called you arrogant. I suggested the tone of your response can seem to some as arrogant. I also reflected on your responses and invited you to help with other areas of the blog.
Hopefully, we can move on from this debate, be friends, and find common ground.
Post a Comment